Green Party of Haw. v. Nago
Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
Docket Number | No. CAAP–14–0001313.,CAAP–14–0001313. |
Citation | 137 Hawai'i 58,365 P.3d 987 |
Parties | GREEN PARTY OF HAWAII, Karen M. Holt, Elizabeth M. Ruze, Michael Kratzke, Moani Keala Akaka, Kim Duffett, Mary Jo Dennison and Maka‘ala Ka‘aumoana, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Scott NAGO, Chief Elections Office, State of Hawai‘i, and State of Hawai‘i, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
Lance D. Collins, on the briefs, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kimberly Tsumoto Guidry, First Deputy Solicitor General, State of Hawai‘i, on the briefs, for defendants-appellees.
Following the 2012 General Election, Plaintiffs–Appellants Green Party of Hawaii, Karen M. Holt, Elizabeth M. Ruze, Michael Kratzke, Moani Keala Akaka, Kim Duffett, Mary Jo Dennison, and Maka‘ala Ka‘aumoana (collectively,Appellants ssss) filed suit against Defendants Scott Nago, Chief Election Officer (Nago ) and the State of Hawai‘i (State ) (together, Appellees ), alleging that: three of the methodologies and procedures used by the State in conjunction with the 2012 General Election were "rules" within the meaning of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) Chapter 91; these purported rules were not promulgated in compliance with HRS Chapter 91; and therefore, they should be declared invalid and subject to a permanent injunction. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court )1 rejected Appellants' arguments and entered Judgment in favor of Nago and the State.
Appellants appeal from the Circuit Court's October 24, 2014 Final Judgment and challenge the Circuit Court's September 26, 2014 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order: (1) Granting Defendants Scott Nago, Chief Election Officer, and the State of Hawaii's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment" (FOF/COL and Order ). We affirm.
This case arose out of the 2012 General Election. It is undisputed that mistakes were made. There was a shortage of paper ballots in English at a number of precincts across the State. In addition, when reserve ballots were sent out to the polling places, there was a mix up of the ballots sent to two locations; this resulted in 57 voters casting votes on incorrect ballots. It appears, however, that: all voters in line at the close of voting received the opportunity to vote; if English language paper ballots were not immediately available at a particular polling place, voters could vote at an electronic voting machine or on an alternative language paper ballot; every voter who signed a precinct book cast a ballot; every voter who voted on the wrong paper ballot had his or her vote counted in every race in which he or she was entitled to vote; and, none of the races that could have been impacted by the ballot mix-up were close enough to have been affected. Nevertheless, as widely acknowledged, Appellees' execution of the 2012 General Election fell short of the electorate's reasonable expectations.
Appellants filed a Complaint on December 7, 2012, alleging that Appellees engaged in unlawful rule-making. Appellants demanded declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:
(1) the use of the methodology used to determine the number of ballots to be printed in a federal and/or state election, (2) the procedures by which a precinct requests additional paper or marksense ballots when the precinct runs out of ballots and receives additional blank paper or marksense ballots, and (3) the procedure used to rectify the situation when a voter votes a ballot that contains some races to which the voter is not entitled to vote, to be invalid [rules], temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief prohibiting [Appellees] from acting pursuant to such invalid rules, and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Appellants filed "Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment" on May 30, 2014. Appellees filed "Defendants Scott Nago and State of Hawaii's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Appellees' MSJ ) on June 9, 2014. The hearing on both motions was held on July 18, 2014. The Circuit Court entered its FOF/COL and Order on September 26, 2014.
Concerning the methodology used to determine the number of blank ballots printed for the 2012 General Election, the Circuit Court's undisputed findings include:
Concerning the procedures used by the precincts to determine to request additional ballots on election day, the Circuit Court's undisputed findings include:
40. On Election Day, precinct workers monitor the supply of paper ballots at the polling place and when it appears that the supply of ballots is running low, a precinct worker calls the counting center at the State Capitol and asks that reserve ballots for that precinct be delivered.
Concerning the procedures used to rectify the situation when a voter casts a ballot that contains some races in which the voter is not entitled to vote, the Circuit Court's undisputed findings include:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green Party of Haw. v. Nago, SCWC–14–0001313.
...by existing statutes and rules.In a published opinion, the ICA affirmed the circuit court's judgment. Green Party of Haw. v. Nago, 137 Hawai‘i 58, 71, 365 P.3d 987, 1000 (App.2015), cert. granted, No. SCWC–14–0001313, 2016 WL 937141 (Haw. Mar. 10, 2016). In analyzing whether the 2012 ballot......